We can now easily see that the Intellectual Property Office since 2004, when the first hearing by Reynolds took place and right through to this last Invalidity hearing in front of Salthouse, have overseen hearings that were riddled with faulty decision making, and the ignoring of their own TMA Law or their Rules.
1/ REYNOLDS; Would not accept a perfectly good evidence document that would have demolished Busbridges case, Would not accept a valid legally made evidence statement made by my solicitor for a higher Court. Had he accepted it would have shown beyond doubt that Busbridge was my agent.
Made several wrongful statements in order to back up his decision. Saying I had abandoned the mark/ I had not controlled the advertising of Busbridge and he could take over the T/M after BRL ceased business even thought there was no evidence they owned it/ ignored the law on abandonment/ saying wrongly that I had not used my T/M during my relationship with Liarman and that gave him the right to it, when the evidence showed otherwise.
2/ FOLEY: He proceeded to look at the application under the TMA Section 64 (1) when he should have proceeded under 64 (5).
Made mistakes by saying it was not an error in the Register when it was an error.
Said he will not revisit previous hearings, then spends much time doing this.
Said I made an application for Rectification when I never did.
He ignored partnership laws which said that Liarmans take over of his brothers assets were illegal.
Obviously did not understand how the IPO should react to bankruptcy.
Made unsubstantiated claims about Martin Busbridge accepting an indemnity. (Which can be shown by Martins later Affidavits)
No comments:
Post a Comment